Son of Kunsang Paljor??
Despite the introduction in 1963 of some of it’s external paraphernalia, Tibetan democracy is yet to come of age. The Commission of Tibetan People’s Deputies, the most consciously democratic institution in the exiled Tibetan community has at it’s last public appearance failed to alter its image of being an impotent body-subservent, for all practical purposes to the dictates of the government. The expectations raised a few years agao when, for the first time, some young people with “modern education” were also elected in the Commission, have now been all but forgotten. The experience so far has shown that old world values and ideas continue to dominate the postitions of power in the Tibetan community even if some of the occupants of these positions happen to differ in age and educational background from their traditional counterparts.
Thus it was that we saw no improvement – not even a change of any kind – in the functioning of the Commission with the inclusion in its ranks of the Peking educated ex Communist cadre Kunsang Paljpr. The people also noted – some with concern some with glee and other disinterestedly – that Genyen Choedon and Deki Dolker, in spite of their much publicised “England returned” status, which at the time was automatically assume to make them different, blended into the mainstream establishment thinking without any visible effort. If these people – with their untraditional backgrounds – have made any significant contribution towards bringing the concept of Tibetan democracy any nearer to reality we are yet to be told about it. Ironically the only member of the Commission who can to date be credited with any efforts of going to the masses as something more than a government’s messenger boy was Thupten Jungney, a middle aged monk, outwards a classic symbol of theocratic power.
As of this month, a brand new Commission has come into office, and expectations have risen again among those Tibetans who have some notion of democratic ideas that we may really be in for some “action” this time. The reason for this restoration of faith is preponderantly new faces that have been elected to represent the people for the next three years. Even among it’s elder members there are some who are known to have disapproved of certain steps taken by the administration in the past. Moreover, there are no less than two young university graduates – Chodak Gyatso, Ngodup Tsering, the latter already having established a precedence of a sort by discarding the traditional Tibetan “modesty” and openly campaigning for his election even issuing a manifesto. To top it all, elected on the chair is Lodi Gyari, a former high ranking official in the administration, who had resigned due to disagreements in policy matters and has even since been looking critically to both the administration and the commission.
Judging from the recent public meetings inDelhi, the masses have also to a small (but significant in the Tibetan setting) degree started wondering whether it was wise on their part leaving the business of democracy entirely in the hands of the government and the Commission.
Despite all these happy augures, however, it is difficult to envisage any real change if three protagonist of the Tibetan democracy – the government, the Commission and the people – continue to uphold the tradition of hiding any kind of folly or incompetence behind the Dalai lama’s name. It should be obvious by now that the masses who are overawed into silence by the very mention of the name of their religious and tempral head have more respect for him than those individuals who drage him along indiscriminately and without the compunction everytime they have difficulty explaining something. IT is true that every imporatnt office bearer in Dharamsala has to be approved by the Dalai Lama before formally taking his office. But there is no logic in presuming that his makes him invincible from public criticism. The effect of this approval on the candidate should be infusion of a determination to prove himself worthy of this trust, not of a sense of price and arrogance, ready to be displayed whenever someone dares to question his integrity or competence. If the Dalai Lama’s approval guarantees his honesty and capability then it makes the institution of the Commision redudant, and nor would there then be any point in holding the annual general meetings, of the administration, where the Commission, acting on behalf of the people, is supposed to scrutinized the performance of the government.
As said above, the composition of the new Commission has raised the expectation of the people. If the Commission attempts to fulfill this expectation by taking resonsible members of the government to task whenever they appear to be acting contrary to the people’s wishes, and if the masses in turn show their approval of such proceedings then there is yet hope for a true Tibetan democracy. If however, they follow on the steps of their predecessors and continue to play a safe, symbolic role, and if there is no public outcry over it, then it can safely be concluded that we have not moved an inch since 1963. In that event, it would be best for the Tibetan people to stop all these hypocritical talks about democracy. The least they can do is have the courage to go up to their and say, “it was most kind of Your Holiness to give us this wonderful idea. But we don’t seem to be ready for it yet. So sorry.”
Despite the introduction in 1963 of some of it’s external paraphernalia, Tibetan democracy is yet to come of age. The Commission of Tibetan People’s Deputies, the most consciously democratic institution in the exiled Tibetan community has at it’s last public appearance failed to alter its image of being an impotent body-subservent, for all practical purposes to the dictates of the government. The expectations raised a few years agao when, for the first time, some young people with “modern education” were also elected in the Commission, have now been all but forgotten. The experience so far has shown that old world values and ideas continue to dominate the postitions of power in the Tibetan community even if some of the occupants of these positions happen to differ in age and educational background from their traditional counterparts.
Thus it was that we saw no improvement – not even a change of any kind – in the functioning of the Commission with the inclusion in its ranks of the Peking educated ex Communist cadre Kunsang Paljpr. The people also noted – some with concern some with glee and other disinterestedly – that Genyen Choedon and Deki Dolker, in spite of their much publicised “England returned” status, which at the time was automatically assume to make them different, blended into the mainstream establishment thinking without any visible effort. If these people – with their untraditional backgrounds – have made any significant contribution towards bringing the concept of Tibetan democracy any nearer to reality we are yet to be told about it. Ironically the only member of the Commission who can to date be credited with any efforts of going to the masses as something more than a government’s messenger boy was Thupten Jungney, a middle aged monk, outwards a classic symbol of theocratic power.
As of this month, a brand new Commission has come into office, and expectations have risen again among those Tibetans who have some notion of democratic ideas that we may really be in for some “action” this time. The reason for this restoration of faith is preponderantly new faces that have been elected to represent the people for the next three years. Even among it’s elder members there are some who are known to have disapproved of certain steps taken by the administration in the past. Moreover, there are no less than two young university graduates – Chodak Gyatso, Ngodup Tsering, the latter already having established a precedence of a sort by discarding the traditional Tibetan “modesty” and openly campaigning for his election even issuing a manifesto. To top it all, elected on the chair is Lodi Gyari, a former high ranking official in the administration, who had resigned due to disagreements in policy matters and has even since been looking critically to both the administration and the commission.
Judging from the recent public meetings inDelhi, the masses have also to a small (but significant in the Tibetan setting) degree started wondering whether it was wise on their part leaving the business of democracy entirely in the hands of the government and the Commission.
Despite all these happy augures, however, it is difficult to envisage any real change if three protagonist of the Tibetan democracy – the government, the Commission and the people – continue to uphold the tradition of hiding any kind of folly or incompetence behind the Dalai lama’s name. It should be obvious by now that the masses who are overawed into silence by the very mention of the name of their religious and tempral head have more respect for him than those individuals who drage him along indiscriminately and without the compunction everytime they have difficulty explaining something. IT is true that every imporatnt office bearer in Dharamsala has to be approved by the Dalai Lama before formally taking his office. But there is no logic in presuming that his makes him invincible from public criticism. The effect of this approval on the candidate should be infusion of a determination to prove himself worthy of this trust, not of a sense of price and arrogance, ready to be displayed whenever someone dares to question his integrity or competence. If the Dalai Lama’s approval guarantees his honesty and capability then it makes the institution of the Commision redudant, and nor would there then be any point in holding the annual general meetings, of the administration, where the Commission, acting on behalf of the people, is supposed to scrutinized the performance of the government.
As said above, the composition of the new Commission has raised the expectation of the people. If the Commission attempts to fulfill this expectation by taking resonsible members of the government to task whenever they appear to be acting contrary to the people’s wishes, and if the masses in turn show their approval of such proceedings then there is yet hope for a true Tibetan democracy. If however, they follow on the steps of their predecessors and continue to play a safe, symbolic role, and if there is no public outcry over it, then it can safely be concluded that we have not moved an inch since 1963. In that event, it would be best for the Tibetan people to stop all these hypocritical talks about democracy. The least they can do is have the courage to go up to their and say, “it was most kind of Your Holiness to give us this wonderful idea. But we don’t seem to be ready for it yet. So sorry.”
posted by editorla at
9:28 PM
<< Home